^ Doesn't mean anything. Bishops and priests betray the faith all the time, the Balamand Agreement being but one example.

Then why should we even trust them in the first place? They were appointed shepherds over the flock of Christ. If they betray the faith, then maybe the gates of hades have prevailed. By this reasoning, then perhaps it would be better for us to reject bishops and the priesthood and become priestless Old Believers.

and succumb to the ultimate siren call of the 'logic' of the dark one...Human vanity has no bounds if unchecked. Not a good idea.

^ Doesn't mean anything. Bishops and priests betray the faith all the time, the Balamand Agreement being but one example.

Then why should we even trust them in the first place? They were appointed shepherds over the flock of Christ. If they betray the faith, then maybe the gates of hades have prevailed. By this reasoning, then perhaps it would be better for us to reject bishops and the priesthood and become priestless Old Believers.

and succumb to the ultimate siren call of the 'logic' of the dark one...Human vanity has no bounds if unchecked. Not a good idea.

I agree with you. I'm just puzzled by statements like those made by Ionnis. How are we supposed to trust anything that the Church has done if "Bishops and priests betray the faith all the time"? Why remain in communion with anyone when the Bishops are just going to fall into heresy and lead us all to the fires of hell?

If you've got too much, just water your plants with it. That way you'll make room for this year's water.

I know folks who drink of it every morning.

I usually reserve it for an "as needed" basis. If someone is really sick, etc.

I also give my godkids a drink of holy water as they leave for their first day of school. My mother always did that for us, so, I have continued it with my godchildren.

My sons used to refer to drinking "good guy water."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In this context I am afraid Orthodox Church has the position that Catholic Church has lost the "Apostolic Succession" by adding human conceptions to the Original Faith.

That isn't the official teaching of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox hierarchs accept that the Roman Catholic Church has apostolic succession and have valid sacraments.

"13...On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to his Church - profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops - cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches.

14. It is in this perspective that the Catholic Churches and the Orthodox Churches recognize each other as Sister Churches, responsible together for maintaining the Church of God in fidelity to the divine purpose, most especially in what concerns unity."

This is from the Balamand declaration which representatives the majority of the Orthodox Churches. You may believe that the Catholic Church has lost its Apostolic Succession, but it isn't what our bishops believe.

The Balamand declaration isn't the official teaching of the Orthodox Church, nor FWIW, the official teaching of the Vatican.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

^ Doesn't mean anything. Bishops and priests betray the faith all the time, the Balamand Agreement being but one example.

Then why should we even trust them in the first place? They were appointed shepherds over the flock of Christ. If they betray the faith, then maybe the gates of hades have prevailed. By this reasoning, then perhaps it would be better for us to reject bishops and the priesthood and become priestless Old Believers.

Andrew, you know the Balamand Agreement is controversial and not widely accepted. You know that it isn't considered the universal Orthodox teaching, even by those who did sign it. I was concerned that you were presenting it as the Orthodox teaching. I encourage you to find the joint response by all twenty monasteries on the Holy Mountain.

And I think it is naive to think that bishops and priests don't betray the Faith. Many betrayed it during the Arian controversies. So many did that we got the phrase, "Athanasius against the world." It didn't mean hell prevailed. No one called for a priestless Orthodoxy. I just think we have to be discerning. Just because a man is bishop or priest doesn't automatically mean that we blindly follow him. I don't think all bishops and priests betray the Faith all the time, but the Faith is betrayed all the time. I think that the Balamand Agreement is one of those instances and I know I'm not alone in feeling this way.

I won't say anything further in this thread.

Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.” -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope

I just think we have to be discerning. Just because a man is bishop or priest doesn't automatically mean that we blindly follow him. I don't think all bishops and priests betray the Faith all the time, but the Faith is betrayed all the time. I think that the Balamand Agreement is one of those instances and I know I'm not alone in feeling this way.

^ Doesn't mean anything. Bishops and priests betray the faith all the time, the Balamand Agreement being but one example.

Then why should we even trust them in the first place? They were appointed shepherds over the flock of Christ. If they betray the faith, then maybe the gates of hades have prevailed. By this reasoning, then perhaps it would be better for us to reject bishops and the priesthood and become priestless Old Believers.

It should be stated very clearly - OUR BISHOPS AND PRIESTS HAVE NOT BETRAYED US.

Ioannis, have you read up on Balamand?

1. Eight of the Orthodox Churches did not participate

2. Orthodox attendees were not of the highest ecumenical level - for example, Russia sent ONE representative, just a monk

3. Balamand was met with complete disdain by the Churches. No Synod ratified it. It just dropped unto a black hole.

I would consider Orthodox holy water to be holy, but then again I would consider Orthodox Sacraments to be graced as well. I would not partake of either because I would not want to offend the Orthodox.

I would consider Orthodox holy water to be holy, but then again I would consider Orthodox Sacraments to be graced as well. I would not partake of either because I would not want to offend the Orthodox.

Wyatt, enjoy the holy water! We use it on cows and cars, on everything really.

I would consider Orthodox holy water to be holy, but then again I would consider Orthodox Sacraments to be graced as well. I would not partake of either because I would not want to offend the Orthodox.

Wyatt, enjoy the holy water! We use it on cows and cars, on everything really.

I would consider Orthodox holy water to be holy, but then again I would consider Orthodox Sacraments to be graced as well. I would not partake of either because I would not want to offend the Orthodox.

Wyatt, enjoy the holy water! We use it on cows and cars, on everything really.

Good to know that I'm not beneath cows and cars in Orthodox eyes.

Soup too, so I have been told, can be blessed with some holy water.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

^ Doesn't mean anything. Bishops and priests betray the faith all the time, the Balamand Agreement being but one example.

Then why should we even trust them in the first place? They were appointed shepherds over the flock of Christ. If they betray the faith, then maybe the gates of hades have prevailed. By this reasoning, then perhaps it would be better for us to reject bishops and the priesthood and become priestless Old Believers.

It should be stated very clearly - OUR BISHOPS AND PRIESTS HAVE NOT BETRAYED US.

Ioannis, have you read up on Balamand?

1. Eight of the Orthodox Churches did not participate

2. Orthodox attendees were not of the highest ecumenical level - for example, Russia sent ONE representative, just a monk

3. Balamand was met with complete disdain by the Churches. No Synod ratified it. It just dropped unto a black hole.

THERE WAS NO BETRAYAL OF THE FAITH BY OUR BISHOPS AND PRIESTS.

Thank you very much, Father! My initial post seems to have been poorly worded because it didn't convey to others what I meant. I apologize for that to all I scandalized. I know that the Churches did not betray the Faith nor did the vast majority of the bishops and priests of the Church. I am still a member of the Orthodox Church after all. :-) I just get frustrated when a couple of bishops go off and do their own thing and then give a false impression. My apologies.

Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.” -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope

^ Doesn't mean anything. Bishops and priests betray the faith all the time, the Balamand Agreement being but one example.

Then why should we even trust them in the first place? They were appointed shepherds over the flock of Christ. If they betray the faith, then maybe the gates of hades have prevailed. By this reasoning, then perhaps it would be better for us to reject bishops and the priesthood and become priestless Old Believers.

It should be stated very clearly - OUR BISHOPS AND PRIESTS HAVE NOT BETRAYED US.

Ioannis, have you read up on Balamand?

1. Eight of the Orthodox Churches did not participate

2. Orthodox attendees were not of the highest ecumenical level - for example, Russia sent ONE representative, just a monk

3. Balamand was met with complete disdain by the Churches. No Synod ratified it. It just dropped unto a black hole.

THERE WAS NO BETRAYAL OF THE FAITH BY OUR BISHOPS AND PRIESTS.

Thank you very much, Father! My initial post seems to have been poorly worded because it didn't convey to others what I meant. I apologize for that to all I scandalized. I know that the Churches did not betray the Faith nor did the vast majority of the bishops and priests of the Church. I am still a member of the Orthodox Church after all. :-) I just get frustrated when a couple of bishops go off and do their own thing and then give a false impression. My apologies.

Not a problem! There seems to be a quite widespread belief that the Orthodox Churches signed onto Balamand. It's good to knock that idea on the head when it pops up..

Anyway, is it fine for me to keep a jar of the Holy Water in the fridge, or should it be kept in an icon corner?

I keep mine in my icon corner.

Is it sanitary to drink room temperature water that's been sitting for a while?

I have a bottle with some from last year. I don't remember exactly when the last time it was that I took a sip from it, but it would have been after it sat for "a while" and I'm still alive. I'm not going to drink any right now just to scientifically prove anything, but I will tell you that it is still clear with nothing visible growing in it.

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

stashko

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

I am very impressed by this. I feel the same way about Eastern Orthodox Sacraments and holy water (that they are graced and holy), but have not heard of many Eastern Orthodox who feel the same way about our Church.

The overwhelming majority of Eastern Orthodox Christians who I know, fellow parishioners mostly, and parishioners of local parishes, believe Orthodoxy has a unique tradition to which they are attracted, but they also think the services are too long, have little interest in the Divine Services of the church other than the Sunday Divine Liturgy, do not think the differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are substantive (very typically rolling their eyes when I explain the "innovations;" they think the Orthodox Church governing structure is lacking, too loose, more authority should be granted to the primates as opposed to the local bishops), and wish there could be some sort of union between the churches wherein, the Orthodox could retain their Eastern liturgical tradition, but there would be union between the churches; (sort of like the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, I guess). Many perceive that our differences are for theologians to argue about, that the common laity don't care about these disputes, and that, a union betwen the Orthodox and Catholics, and perhaps traditional Protestants, is vital to combat the real evil in the world, the Moslems. I AM NOT MAKING ANY OF THESE ARGUMENTS AND DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM, but this is my opinion of what an overwhelming majority of common laity I encounter in the Orthodox Churches in the United States hold. They typically attend church perhaps once a month or so, and are not involved in parish ministries (like Bible Study), other than, perhaps, youth activities for their children.

One reason for much of these types of feelings I think, is that our differences are not really emphasized in sermons, (Orthodox teaching is emphasised, our life in Christ is emphasized, our path to salvation too, but not how our theology differs with Catholicism). Differences are mentioned in catechism classes, but they are not emphasized and very few parishioners attend. We had an assistant priest for a year or so, who would tend to stress our differences with Roman Catholics, and he became quite controversial. Another reason I think for this, what I would call weak theology, is attributable to the significant amount of intermarriages in our families. I recall after hearing one of these sermons from the assistant priest I referred to, a little girl cried and asked our presiding priest if her grandmother (who was Roman Catholic) was going to go the hell.

Another example of how I find peoples views such as I'm stating, is the experience of my parish's nameday, June 29th, the Feast Day of Sts. Peter and Paul. Frequently, the former bishop of our diocese would be conducting a pastoral visitation on that day, as our parish is named for St. Paul the Apostle. He was a co-chair of the dialogues between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in North America. In his sermons on those days, he would typically note that a delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was making a fraternal visit to His Holiness the Pope, at the Vatican on that day, the occasion of the Patronal Feast of the Church of Rome. He would also point out the differences between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches. Our parishioners think he is a critic of Catholicism, while many in the Orthodox Church consider him a modernist who is too cosy with Roman Catholics.

Some of my experience too, in this regard, is feed back that I get from Orthodox who attend the church tours that I give during our festivals. Explaining the symbolism of the church architecture, accoutrements, and iconography, explains our theology, and prompts feed back from those who have learned something in these tours.

Just some perspective of what we have to deal with in some of our parishes.

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

Ok. It is simple. On one bottle you put normal water. On one bottle you put Holy water from eastern orthodox Church. On one bottle you put Holy water from Roman Catholic Church. On one bottle you put nothing from protestant Church.

Then you wait 40 days. Then you try drinking and smelling and check to see if you see a difference. If you do that, discharging of Holy Water has to be done properly. I hope some guys exit uncommon sense denial process. I mean you can go and see yearly miracles with your eyes.

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

Thank you for your beautiful and reassuring words as they accurately express what I have been taught, and what I believe to be, the proper expression of our differences with Rome.

The overwhelming majority of Eastern Orthodox Christians who I know, fellow parishioners mostly, and parishioners of local parishes, believe Orthodoxy has a unique tradition to which they are attracted, but they also think the services are too long, have little interest in the Divine Services of the church other than the Sunday Divine Liturgy, do not think the differences between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church are substantive (very typically rolling their eyes when I explain the "innovations;" they think the Orthodox Church governing structure is lacking, too loose, more authority should be granted to the primates as opposed to the local bishops), and wish there could be some sort of union between the churches wherein, the Orthodox could retain their Eastern liturgical tradition, but there would be union between the churches; (sort of like the Roman Catholic Byzantine Rite, I guess). Many perceive that our differences are for theologians to argue about, that the common laity don't care about these disputes, and that, a union betwen the Orthodox and Catholics, and perhaps traditional Protestants, is vital to combat the real evil in the world, the Moslems. I AM NOT MAKING ANY OF THESE ARGUMENTS AND DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM, but this is my opinion of what an overwhelming majority of common laity I encounter in the Orthodox Churches in the United States hold. They typically attend church perhaps once a month or so, and are not involved in parish ministries (like Bible Study), other than, perhaps, youth activities for their children.

One reason for much of these types of feelings I think, is that our differences are not really emphasized in sermons, (Orthodox teaching is emphasised, our life in Christ is emphasized, our path to salvation too, but not how our theology differs with Catholicism). Differences are mentioned in catechism classes, but they are not emphasized and very few parishioners attend. We had an assistant priest for a year or so, who would tend to stress our differences with Roman Catholics, and he became quite controversial. Another reason I think for this, what I would call weak theology, is attributable to the significant amount of intermarriages in our families. I recall after hearing one of these sermons from the assistant priest I referred to, a little girl cried and asked our presiding priest if her grandmother (who was Roman Catholic) was going to go the hell.

Another example of how I find peoples views such as I'm stating, is the experience of my parish's nameday, June 29th, the Feast Day of Sts. Peter and Paul. Frequently, the former bishop of our diocese would be conducting a pastoral visitation on that day, as our parish is named for St. Paul the Apostle. He was a co-chair of the dialogues between Orthodoxy and Catholicism in North America. In his sermons on those days, he would typically note that a delegation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was making a fraternal visit to His Holiness the Pope, at the Vatican on that day, the occasion of the Patronal Feast of the Church of Rome. He would also point out the differences between the Church of Rome and the Orthodox Churches. Our parishioners think he is a critic of Catholicism, while many in the Orthodox Church consider him a modernist who is too cosy with Roman Catholics.

Some of my experience too, in this regard, is feed back that I get from Orthodox who attend the church tours that I give during our festivals. Explaining the symbolism of the church architecture, accoutrements, and iconography, explains our theology, and prompts feed back from those who have learned something in these tours.

Just some perspective of what we have to deal with in some of our parishes.

That is a great 'boots on the ground' analysis of the local parish and how these matters relate there.

The truth of the matter is that for the Orthodox, our relationship with Rome is complex. As Basil noted, regardless of what point of view you take - you are caught between the Devil and deep blue sea. A fair critique of Catholicism, distinguishing it from Orthodoxy from the pulpit and the pastor faces 'weird' questions from mixed marriage couples and their children - such as 'is Gramma going to hell'. Then there are those who will criticize you if you take a position any less extreme than some of our posters here online.

I think that most recognize that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism dating from the first millennium still share a large amount of common history, practice, eccelsiology (but for 'he whose name shall not be mentioned'), theology and doctrine (I know - the IC, purgatory etc... but we lived as one for a long time with those concepts without breaking communion, for example the Augustinian concepts of 'original sin' and the nature of man). Because of this reality, many of us and probably most of our leaders want Catholics to 'like' us and, more importantly, respect us for what we are. (What 'like us' actually means varies considerably among us. )

As to the fruits of 'ecumenism' and dialogue between us, I don't think they have brought 'reunion' any closer but I do believe that as to 'liking' and respecting each other, such efforts have borne fruit and been worthwhile.

Holy water isn't "magic." Don't turn it into a magic act. It can go corrupt; it doesn't mean it's not holy.

"Holy" means set apart, sanctified for God. When we recognize something as holy, we are simply restoring it to its true purpose - as a means of communing with God; we bless water because it is a basic element of creation, and we can use it to sanctify our homes, ourselves, etc...; in other words, to reclaim a part of the fallen world for God.

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

Holy water isn't "magic." Don't turn it into a magic act. It can go corrupt; it doesn't mean it's not holy.

"Holy" means set apart, sanctified for God. When we recognize something as holy, we are simply restoring it to its true purpose - as a means of communing with God; we bless water because it is a basic element of creation, and we can use it to sanctify our homes, ourselves, etc...; in other words, to reclaim a part of the fallen world for God.

Don't overdo the analysis of the holy water.

Fr. Michael

When seeing a patient in a psychiatric unit for the first time, I will pray with them and ask them to kiss the precious cross and to drink some holy water, all the while attentive to their behaviour in order to see if there may be anything demon-related in their problems. I honestly would not be comfortable using Catholic holy water. In fact I would not use it.

While during the later part of the first millennium the Roman Catholic Church, which was founded within the Apostolic tradition of the Undivided Christian Church--the "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church," has innovated teaching and practice, and has wrongly promulgated innovative "doctrine," unfounded in scriptures, and thus, does not share in the fullness of the Faith, it has not lost holiness, its ability to ask and secure God's blessing upon water, as practiced by the early church. Admittedly, I cannot prove that this position is correct, but it is my opinion and is supported by the former bishop of the diocese in which I am subject. Who among us would cast aside water blessed in today's Roman Catholic Church, as a meaningless substance, not possessing holiness?

Hi Basil. Great post. I'm curious whether you would say the same about Anglican holy water as well?

Holy water isn't "magic." Don't turn it into a magic act. It can go corrupt; it doesn't mean it's not holy.

"Holy" means set apart, sanctified for God. When we recognize something as holy, we are simply restoring it to its true purpose - as a means of communing with God; we bless water because it is a basic element of creation, and we can use it to sanctify our homes, ourselves, etc...; in other words, to reclaim a part of the fallen world for God.

Don't overdo the analysis of the holy water.

Fr. Michael

When seeing a patient in a psychiatric unit for the first time, I will pray with them and ask them to kiss the precious cross and to drink some holy water, all the while attentive to their behaviour in order to see if there may be anything demon-related in their problems. I honestly would not be comfortable using Catholic holy water. In fact I would not use it.

I don't necessarily see anything at odds between these two statements.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Holy water isn't "magic." Don't turn it into a magic act. It can go corrupt; it doesn't mean it's not holy.

"Holy" means set apart, sanctified for God. When we recognize something as holy, we are simply restoring it to its true purpose - as a means of communing with God; we bless water because it is a basic element of creation, and we can use it to sanctify our homes, ourselves, etc...; in other words, to reclaim a part of the fallen world for God.

Don't overdo the analysis of the holy water.

Fr. Michael

When seeing a patient in a psychiatric unit for the first time, I will pray with them and ask them to kiss the precious cross and to drink some holy water, all the while attentive to their behaviour in order to see if there may be anything demon-related in their problems. I honestly would not be comfortable using Catholic holy water. In fact I would not use it.

I don't necessarily see anything at odds between these two statements.

My apologies. I did not intend to say there was anything at odds. I just hung my post on Sakran's post.

I would have formerly said the same thing about the Anglican Church, or for that matter, any of the traditional Protestant churches, who profess the Holy Trinity, "one in essence and undivided," but I'm very uncomfortable with the confessions who now ordain women and openly practicing homosexuals. I don't want to say they have no grace or holiness, but I am uncomfortable with the vile behavior that these churches are now openly accepting among their clergy, even hierarchy. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be judgemental, but these changes seem too bizarre to me and too inconsistent with the traditions and practices of the Early Church. I'm sorry but I am scandalized to see these types, women and openly practicing homosexuals, wearing clerical vestments; it looks to me like a layman making fun of clergy by dressing for Halloween as a clergyman. I don't mean to alter the discussion in this topic, just responding to a poster's inquiry to me.

Oh, all is well. I wasn't implying that I would use Catholic holy water. I won't; I am an Orthodox priest, and I use water blessed according to our Orthodox rites. My point was that we should not reduce holy things to an analysis of senses/science on one hand, or reduce it to superstition or magic on the other.

I would have formerly said the same thing about the Anglican Church, or for that matter, any of the traditional Protestant churches, who profess the Holy Trinity, "one in essence and undivided," but I'm very uncomfortable with the confessions who now ordain women and openly practicing homosexuals. I don't want to say they have no grace or holiness, but I am uncomfortable with the vile behavior that these churches are now openly accepting among their clergy, even hierarchy. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be judgemental, but these changes seem too bizarre to me and too inconsistent with the traditions and practices of the Early Church. I'm sorry but I am scandalized to see these types, women and openly practicing homosexuals, wearing clerical vestments; it looks to me like a layman making fun of clergy by dressing for Halloween as a clergyman. I don't mean to alter the discussion in this topic, just responding to a poster's inquiry to me.

I've never understood why it offensive. I had a Ukrainian Byzantine Catholic advisor who had no qualms about using the word to describe herself.

About how long ago was this?

At the 2000 Meeting in Baltimore of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church the word "uniate" was used by both Catholic and Orthodox delegates. I have not found the minutes of the Meeting but below is a report from ENS.

The Meeting by the way ended in bitter acrimony. A walkout by Cardinal Kasper and the Catholic delegates took place. No Joint Statement was issued.

Ecumenical News InternationalDaily News Service / 03 February 2000

Uniate issue again disturbs Orthodox-Catholic relations

By Jonathan Luxmoore in Warsaw and Edmund Doogue in Geneva

3 February (ENI)--A long-standing conflict between the Orthodox Church andEastern Catholic churches - also referred to as Greek-Catholic churches or"Uniates" - is threatening to heighten ecumenical tensions as the Vatican andthe Orthodox prepare to resurrect bilateral talks.

If someone finds a label used to identify them offensive and an alternative is just as easy to use and is just as descriptive, the only reason to use the former is pride.

The term "uniate" was invented by the "Orthodox in union with Rome" to describe themselves. They wore it with pride. In Europe the term is still used. It is not so offensive there as it is now seen in the US. Look at the writings of the Polish Professor Waclaw Hryniewicz, a Catholic theologian and director of the Ecumenical Institute at the Catholic University of Lublin

If someone finds a label used to identify them offensive and an alternative is just as easy to use and is just as descriptive, the only reason to use the former is pride.

The term "uniate" was invented by the "Orthodox in union with Rome" to describe themselves. They wore it with pride. In Europe the term is still used. It is not so offensive there as it is now seen in the US. Look at the writings of the Polish Professor Waclaw Hryniewicz, a Catholic theologian and director of the Ecumenical Institute at the Catholic University of Lublin

Like I've said before, I never sensed, growing up where and when I did that the 'U' word was offensive. The Orthodox and the Greek Catholics used it to refer to the Greek Catholics. Don't hear it so much nowadays so perhaps it just sounds offensive today. However, in deference to board policies, I abide by the rule - although I have 'slipped' from time to time when my fingers type faster than my brain!